Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Thoohar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
• The West Pakistan Agriculture Development Corporation and 21984 PLD Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06
  condonation of delaylimitation actsufficient causegovernment departmentcivil appealarbitration clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a trial court judgment decreeing a recovery suit in favor of the respondent. The appellants filed the appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a significant delay. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for the delay by explaining the delay of each and every day, and whether government-owned organizations or departments are entitled to preferential treatment under the law of limitation. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants failed to act with reasonable diligence and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged departmental inaction, and reaffirmed that the government and state organizations cannot claim different standards of limitation compared to ordinary litigants. The court established that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not confer special considerations or discriminatory leniency to government departments, which must demonstrate promptness and explain every day of delay like any other litigant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government or state-owned organizations can claim a different standard or preferential treatment under the law of limitation compared to ordinary citizens?
  • Does a party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have to explain the delay of each and every day?
  • Whether an arbitration clause requiring reference to an engineer before filing a suit bars the jurisdiction of the civil court?
  • What constitutes sufficient cause for the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Saeed a Hmed1984 P Cr. L J 2171 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
• The State vs Najibul Hassan1984 P Cr. L J 3012 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Khan1984 P Cr. L J 2852 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad HanifPTCL 1984 (CL) 245 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khalid Jam Il and Another1984 P Cr. L J 822 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Kha Ir Hussain1984 P Cr. L J 1001 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bago1984 P Cr. L J 721 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
• The State vs Au Khan1984 P Cr. L J 2877 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ahmad Khan1984 P Cr. L J 238 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-24Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocategeneral vs Muhamm Ad Umar1984 P Cr. L J 1718 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocategeneral and Ex Officio Public Prosecutor1984 P Cr. L J 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-01Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocategeneral & Ex Officio Public Prosecutor1984 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Sind Provincial Co--Operative Bank Ltd vs Ahmed Mukhtar and 71984 MLD 948 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-21Read full judgment →
• The Sevenup Company vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1984 CLC 3249 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• The Printers Combine (Mercantile) Ltd, Nazimabad, Karachi vs The Commissioner of in Ome-Tax Karachi, West KarachiF331984 PTD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-28Read full judgment →
• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1984 PLC 1149 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-18
  constitutional petitiondismissal from servicemisappropriationgrievance petitionlimitationdepartmental appeallabor appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which allowed an employee's appeal against dismissal from service for alleged misappropriation and ordered his reinstatement without back benefits. The petitioner bank challenged this decision, arguing primarily that the employee's grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was barred by time, and that the Appellate Tribunal had misread the evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the limitation period for serving a grievance notice commenced after the conclusion or reasonable expectation of departmental remedies, noting that the employee was informed his case was pending before the Staff Review Committee and his departmental appeal had not been rejected. Furthermore, the Court held that in a constitutional petition, the findings of fact and evaluation of evidence by the Labour Appellate Tribunal cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse or contrary to the record, which was not the case here. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is barred by time when a departmental appeal remains undecided and the employer delays communicating a final decision?
  • Can the findings of fact and appreciation of evidence by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal be interfered with in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the pendency of a departmental appeal extend the time for serving a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation vs Sindh Labour Appellate1984 PLC 614 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs Pakistan Defence1984 MLD 240 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• The Government of Sind and 3 others vs M a Soo D Jan1984 MLD 957 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Custodian, Enemy Property vs Messrs Muhammad Jamil &1984 MLD 340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• The Darul Uloom Naieemia Trust vs Munir Ahmed1984 CLC 3483 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-11
  evictionbona fide personal usetrust propertycharitable purposerent restrictiondini madaresa
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed by a registered Trust under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the ejectment of a tenant from residential premises to use them for charitable purposes, namely running a 'Madaresa' and 'Dars-e-Qur'an'. The core legal question was whether a trust can seek eviction of a tenant for personal bona fide use to advance charitable objects and whether the distinction between residential and non-residential premises under older rent laws subsists. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred in refusing eviction on grounds of tenant hardship and alternative local facilities, noting that trust objects benefiting the public outweigh tenant inconvenience, and that the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 removed the earlier statutory distinction between residential and non-residential buildings. The appeal was accordingly allowed, granting the tenant time to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trust seek the eviction of a tenant from rented premises for personal bona fide use to carry out its charitable objects?
  • Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 maintain a distinction between residential and non-residential buildings for eviction purposes?
  • Can a rent controller refuse eviction of trust property on the ground that alternative religious institutions exist in the locality?
  • Whether the hardship caused to a tenant outweighs the public benefit of advancing the charitable objects of a trust?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sikandar Ali and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1774 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-01Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Wealth Tax/Income-Tax, Karachi (East), Karachi1984 PTD 164 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-27Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax (East), Karachi vs Messrs Philips1984 PTD 42 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax (East) Karachi vs Messrs I.C. I. (Pak.)1984 PTD 8 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central), Karachi vs Messrs Calcutta1984 PTD 44 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax/Sales Tax (Central Zone Karachi vs1984 PTD 381 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-26Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Mian1984 PTD 74 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 11 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (East), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 405 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (Central) Karachi vs Abdul1984 PTD 48 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs Asaf Industries Ltd., Karachi1984 PTD 113 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (Central Zone) vs Messrs1984 PTD 337 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04
  income taxpension fundsalaryforeign companytax deduction at sourcereference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This income-tax reference from the Sindh High Court addresses whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing employer contributions to a foreign pension fund where no effective arrangements for tax deduction at source were made. The core legal question involved whether such contributions constituted part of the employees' salary under Section 7 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, thereby attracting the disallowance provision under Section 10(4)(a). The Court held that contributions made towards a pension fund maintained by a foreign company abroad are of a contingent nature and do not constitute part of the salary of the employees, but rather represent a reimbursement for future liabilities. Consequently, the Court answered the reframed question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and holding that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the contributions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the power to reframe a question of law referred by the Tribunal at the stage of arguments?
  • Whether contributions made by an employer to a foreign pension fund constitute part of the salary of the employees under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Whether employer contributions to a foreign pension fund of a contingent nature attract the disallowance provisions under Section 10(4)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Pakistan Petroleum Ltd.1984 PTD 179 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Dadabhoy Silk Mills Ltd, Karachi1984 PTD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Ismail Yousuf Saedat and Othbm1984 PTD 231 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (West Zone), -Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-17
  income taxrejection of accountsgross profitestimation of profitsreference applicationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from income tax assessment proceedings concerning the respondent assessee for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Income-tax Officer's rejection of the assessee's book version and estimation of profits under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Tribunal's findings. The Court held that the Tribunal was fully justified in accepting the assessee's accounts, as the Income-tax Officer had acted arbitrarily by rejecting them merely on the basis of a drop in gross profit without providing details of comparable cases, and without rebutting the reasonable explanations and consistent accounting methods offered by the assessee. The key principle laid down is that where an assessee maintains accounts on the same lines as accepted in previous years and provides plausible explanations for a fall in gross profits, the Income-tax Officer cannot arbitrarily reject the book version and apply discretionary profit estimation under Section 13.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income-tax Officer is justified in rejecting the assessee's book version merely on the ground of a fall in gross profits without giving specific details of comparable cases?
  • Can the Income-tax Officer reject accounts maintained on the same lines as in previous years when the assessee has provided reasonable explanations for deviations?
  • Whether the Tribunal's decision to accept the book version of the assessee based on consistent accounting methods and explanations is sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Investigation), Lahore vs Messrs1984 PTD 190 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (East), Karachi vs Messrs S. M. Yusuf1984 PTD 84 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (East Zone), Karachi vs Mossa1984 PTD 394 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central). Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 47 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1984 MLD 529 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 364 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income- Tax (Cen t Ral), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 200 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi vs Nisar Ahmed1984 PTD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax (West), Karachi vs Messrs Pan1984 PTD 154 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 187 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-01Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax (East), Karachi vs Volkmar Roeddee1984 PTD 169 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• The Commerce Bank Ltd. vs Mian Muhammad Akhtar and 6 others1984 MLD 547 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• The Coinimiss10ner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Sadruddin1984 PTD 234 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• The Chairman, WAPDA and 2 Others vs Syed Jamil Ahmad1984 CLC 2299 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• Thakurdas vs The Returning Officer and 3 Others1984 CLC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21
  nomination paperelectoral rollprinting mistakelocal councils electionappellate authoritysubstantial defectwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the appellate authority setting aside the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination paper for a local council election on the ground of a discrepancy in his father's name. The core legal question was whether a printing mistake in the published electoral roll regarding a candidate's parentage constitutes a defect of a substantial nature under election rules, and whether the original manuscript electoral roll prevails. The Sindh High Court held that a misprint in the printed electoral roll is not a substantial defect when the original manuscript contains the correct parentage and is supported by a certificate from the relevant registration officer. The Court laid down the principle that the original manuscript of the electoral roll is the authentic record, and a printing discrepancy therein does not justify rejecting a nomination paper as it constitutes a remediable non-substantial defect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a printing mistake of a candidate's father's name in a printed electoral roll constitutes a defect of a substantial nature?
  • Can a Returning Officer accept a nomination paper relying on the original manuscript electoral roll and a certificate from the Assistant Registration Officer despite a misprint in the published electoral roll?
  • Does a misprint in the electoral roll fall under the prohibition of inquiring into the correctness or validity of an entry under the election rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Tea Commissioner of Income-Tax (West Zone), Karachi vs Messers1984 PTD 221 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
• Tayya B vs The Additional Commissioner/Settlement1984 CLC 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• Tayab and 4 Others vs The Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1984 CLC 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-20Read full judgment →
• Tausiful Islam and 13 others vs Province of Sind and 3 others1984 MLD 972 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
• Tassaduq Hussa1n vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
• Tariq vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mukhtar vs Mst. Nasim Zaidi1984 MLD 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
• Talib Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1787 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Talib Masih alias Talib Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2494 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Wasi Haider and 5 others1984 MLD 863 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-20Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 204 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahammad Shah (represented by heirs) vs Diwan Metharam1984 MLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
• Tahir Amin vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.1984 CLC 2245 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
• Syedzada Akber Jalil vs Vice-Chancellor, N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi and others1984 MLD 191 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• Syedulmutahireen Rizvi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2858 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Ali vs Syed Muhammad Nasim1984 CLC 828 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Wilayat Hussain vs Sheikh Fazlur Rehman1984 CLC 397 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Tausif Ahmad Zaidi vs Mst. Naheeda Nighat1984 MLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Sultan Ahmad vs Niaz Muhammad and another1984 MLD 834 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Sikandar Shah vs Government of Sind and 2 others1984 MLD 906 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi vs Province of Sind and anothers1984 MLD 604 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• Syed RIAZUDDINand 15 others vs Deputy Land Commissioner and 2 others1984 MLD 750 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Pir Muhammad Yaqub Ali Shah vs Hazrat Mahmood and Otmers1984 P Cr. L J 908 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Muzaffar Ali Jafri vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and Two Others1984 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Murad Ali Shah and 2 others vs Registrar, Co-Operative1984 MLD 796 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Mumtaz Hussain vs Muhammad Ismail1984 CLC 2716 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Yousuf vs Muhammad Mustafa1984 CLC 2007 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Wasif vs The Province of Sind through the Seceretary, Board Op Revenue, Karachi and Others1984 CLC 3033 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Usman vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and '61984 CLC 2087 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Sibtain Ali Rizvi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal vs Pakistan Railways and Others1984 PLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Hassan Ashraf vs Aijaz-Ur-Rehman1984 MLD 241 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Aisha1984 CLC 2332 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementtenancy agreementlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The Collector dismissed the application, finding neither ground established. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court examined whether the admitted non-payment of rent from August 1976 to June 1977 constituted a default. The Court held that the respondent failed to prove the alleged practice of paying accumulated rent, which in any event is of no avail under settled jurisprudence, and that the tenant could have deposited the rent in court or remitted it. The Court further held that the appellant failed to substantiate his personal bona fide requirement with evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed solely on the ground of default in payment of rent, granting the respondent four months to vacate the premises. The key principle laid down is that a tenant cannot evade the statutory obligation to pay rent regularly by pleading an unproven practice of accumulated payments when legal remedies to deposit rent are available.

  Questions settled

  • Does a practice of paying accumulated rent absolve a tenant from liability for default?
  • Can an ejectment application succeed on personal requirement without substantiating evidence?
  • Is a tenant obliged to deposit rent in court if the landlord's exact address is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali vs DR. Muhammad Sultan Zakaria1984 CLC 2351 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohammad Shah vs Dr. Tajamul Hussain1984 CLC 2522 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Moazzam Ali vs Principal, Dawood College of Engineering &1984 CLC 2093 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
• Syed MOAllUM Hussain vs MRs, Fatima Qidwai1984 MLD 925 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar ALIAppelicant vs Ali Khan and Anothers1984 P Cr. L J 354 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17
  quashment of proceedingscivil disputedishonoured chequeabuse of processpreliminary inquirymaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the City Magistrate Nawabshah. The core legal questions involved whether the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature regarding a dishonoured cheque, and whether a petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable without first approaching the trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the contents of the complaint and preliminary statements disclosed only a civil dispute that could not result in a conviction, rendering the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, the court held that where cognizance is taken after a preliminary inquiry, moving the trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 would be a futile exercise, making the remedy under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 directly maintainable. The petition was consequently allowed and the proceedings quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for quashment of proceedings is maintainable under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first moving the trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a dispute arising from a dishonoured cheque involving payment obligations constitute a criminal offence under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or a civil dispute?
  • Does the continuation of criminal proceedings that cannot result in a conviction amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqsood Ali vs Mst. Soofia Naushaba and 3 OTHERs1984 CLC 3167 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Hussain vs Karachi Transport Corporation and 31984 PLC 1590 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Hussain Naqvi vs Mst. Shah Rukh Zamani Begum1984 CLC 1618 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahboob Shah vs Sher Afzal1984 CLC 2499 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahboob Ali and 2 Others vs Ghulam Rabbani and 8 Others1984 CLC 114 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Mah Mood Qadri and 5 Others vs 0. S. D., Federal Land1984 CLC 2330 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Hussain Abedi vs Mst. Geti Ara Begum1984 CLC 68 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-08
  rent appealstriking off defencerent orderarrears of rentsummary inquiryejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant/tenant's defence and ordering ejectment due to non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The core legal question is whether a rent order directing the deposit of arrears is valid when it fails to consider the tenant's specific plea of prior payment for a portion of the claimed period, especially when the case had reached an advanced stage of evidence recording. The Court held that the Rent Controller failed to perform a necessary summary inquiry regarding the disputed arrears and ignored the tenant's plea of payment. Consequently, the rent order was deemed illegal, and the subsequent striking off of the defence based on that flawed order was unsustainable. The principle laid down is that a Rent Controller must consider all pleadings, objections, and evidence on record before passing a rent order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, particularly when a dispute regarding the quantum of arrears exists, and cannot strike off a defence based on an order that ignores a tenant's specific, unaddressed plea of payment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a rent order valid if it fails to address a tenant's specific plea regarding the payment of arrears?
  • Must a Rent Controller consider evidence on record when passing a rent order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with an illegal rent order?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Abbas Rizvi vs Miss Gohar Fatima1984 CLC 2449 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentrelationship of landlord and tenantbona fide personal needcross-objections
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the XVth Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, which allowed an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, while deciding the issue of personal requirement against the respondent. The core legal questions involved whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, whether the appellant committed default in the payment of rent, and whether the respondent could assail the adverse finding on personal requirement without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections. The Sindh High Court held that the respondent's ownership was established, that the appellant's father acted as her attorney in collecting rent confirming the landlord-tenant relationship, that the appellant failed to prove valid tender or deposit of rent for the disputed months constituting default, and that a respondent may criticize an adverse finding without filing a cross-appeal. The Court further held that the respondent sufficiently proved her bona fide personal need to live independently with her husband. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with modified time granted to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists when rent is collected by the owner's father acting as an attorney?
  • Does a tenant's failure to examine the postman disprove the refusal of a money order for rent?
  • Can a respondent challenge an adverse finding on an issue without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections?
  • Whether a married daughter is barred by custom from maintaining a separate house for living independently with her husband?
  Read full judgment →